Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

vi),  “immovable property” shall have the same meaning  as in clause (d) of section 269UA. 2.   For   the   removal   of   doubts,   it   is   hereby  clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be  deemed   to   have   always   included   disposing   of   or  Page 26 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT parting with an asset or any interest therein, or  creating any interest in any asset

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

vi),  “immovable property” shall have the same meaning  as in clause (d) of section 269UA. 2.   For   the   removal   of   doubts,   it   is   hereby  clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be  deemed   to   have   always   included   disposing   of   or  Page 26 of 41 C/TAXAP/194/2008 JUDGMENT parting with an asset or any interest therein, or  creating any interest in any asset

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

capital gains. This classification under distinct heads of income profits and gains is made having regard to the sources from which income is derived. Income-tax is undoubtedly levied on the total taxable income of the taxpayer and the tax levied is a single tax on the aggregate taxable receipts from all the sources; it is not a collection

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

gain accrued to the assessee in order to attra(:t Sections 45 and Section 4g of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of thr: Supreme Court in Seshasayee Steels private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai r and decisions on Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata_l vs. Infinity Infotech

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/s Vijay Textiles Limited

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

47) the word transfer includes relinquishment of rights?” 2. We have heard Mr.Jeevan J. Neeralgi appearing on behalf of Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue. 3 3. It appears that the Tribunal while dealing with the said aspects has observed thus: “16. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. The question to be answered

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S V.SATAYANARAYANA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Capital Territory of Delhi)16 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : 16. On the said aspect, we would now refer to Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: ―20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.—(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. A.V. V. VARAPRASAD

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

gains. 5. The Tribunal on reconsideration of the facts in their entirety, concurred with the view of the AO that as form No.7B was signed by both parties on 24.11.2009, the effective transfer as defined under Section 2 (47) of the Act has taken place on the said date. In that process, the Tribunal also took into consideration a letter

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

vi. Sanjeev Kakkar - He did his masters in Mechanical Engineering. His designation is 'Sales Director'. He is an employee of GEIIPL working since 2000. Annexure 10 discussing his roles and responsibilities provides through the sixth bullet point that:' As a part of his job, Sanjeev would understand the requirements of clients in terms of equipment required as well as financing

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains on transfers, to invest unaccounted money (`black money') and to avoid payment of `unearned increases' due to Development Authorities on transfer. 2. The modus operandi in such SA/GPA/WILL transactions is for the vendor or person claiming to be the owner to receive the agreed consideration, deliver possession of the property to the purchaser and execute the following documents

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

capital gains tax, etc., the official figure should be lesser. In a sense, to that extent, it is a case of tax avoidance which is culpable both legally and morally. One cannot gainfully argue that it is a case of tax planning, intent being corrupt. However, that has been done at the instance of the 1st defendant, at whose hands

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

47 70. PW-25 Dr. Nandineni Madhusudan Reddy, Staff Scientist, Laboratory of DNA Finger Printing Services, CDFD, Hyderabad has proved the DNA test report, as per which, the DNA Profile of skeleton remains of 'H'. could not be found in any of the bones seized by Noida Police or CBI. Issues arising in this appeal 71. The issues that survive/arise

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

VI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(2) BENGALURU. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV. A/W SRI T.N.C.SRIDHAR, ADV.) AND : M/s SUBEX LTD., RMZ ECOWORLD, DEVARABISANAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 037. PAN: AABCS 9255R. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri P.Sarveswara Rao

Appeals are partly allowed, in view of the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

VI-A of Income-tax is necessary at this state as the issue concerning assessee‟s claim is clearly covered by section 43-B of the Act.” 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim. The CIT(A) held that the amount of sales tax collected as incentive for setting up industries in backward areas

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

47 of 70 one lakh and fifty thousand) or the amount may be determined in terms of the Second Schedule whichever is higher. Such amount is to be paid if any application is filed under Section 163-A of the 1988 Act.” 60. The decision in Puttamma (supra) was rendered on 09.12.2013. More than 2 years and 4 months have